The Problem-Solving Dilemma

The Problem-Solving Dilemma

A must-read for leaders and managers

When we set out to solve the problem-solution binomial in a justified way, regardless of the criteria and perspectives applied, we need to decide how we will approach the issue presented.

In contemporary humanity, nothing moves without the acceptance of this solution by other individuals, that is, we need to justify our action and convince other people that the proposed solution is the most appropriate. Some will share our ideas, which we can quickly and easily accept, while others will disagree in whole or in part with the proposed remedy, as well as with the values ​and ideals that served as its basis.

It becomes easier to obtain support for war when we have a common enemy. Something that inflicts suffering or damages the safety and well-being of our families and/or the interests of each group. Modern storytelling techniques explore this very well.

Under logical reasoning, for those who set out to resolve or improve an unsafe, harmful, dangerous, costly or even disturbing situation because it represents potential future undesirable impacts, I understand that we can meet the demand in two directions.

We can focus the entire scope on the problem and its consequences, which naturally leads us to measure, quantify and assess its impacts. However, such an interpretation is addressed in the time and space of that situation, that is, it is also geographically and temporally frozen. Measurements, whether empirical or scientific, of cause and effect relationships are tied to the circumstances and reality of a specific place or time.

Just because candles and oil lamps have lit our homes for millennia does not mean that we need to maintain this indefinitely. Addressing potential solutions to a specific problem requires weighing up what is essential and what is tradition.

If we focus the search for possible solutions to a specific problem, we inevitably end up limiting these solutions to the limits of the circumstances of that particular problem. Even when there are multiple options and we apply a rational process, with greater or lesser emotional burdens of choosing one of them, the result is a particular solution with a unitary justification.

Individuals or groups affected by the problem demand a higher level of service and do not easily accept “half-solutions”. They aim to eliminate the problem “forever”. It is an emotional characteristic of the human individual to want to get rid of the problem. When it is explained to them that there are limitations in resources, capacity or even knowledge, they use their fair share of tolerance to accept that there has been progress but never forget that it is far from ideal. This explains the complaint of public managers, company directors and engineers to their clients when they say, disappointed: “They are never happy.”

Any effort to replicate or extrapolate this solution to another location or another time period may not be successful or “as successful”. This relativity of solutions explains why the most advanced model of iPhone fully meets the needs of one group of people, partially meets the needs of another group, leaving them dissatisfied, but completely displeases another group who will never buy it.

On the other hand, if we focus our efforts on developing a generic solution that “can be applied” to multiple and similar situations, even if it yields less complete or excellent results in different places and times, we give this solution the potential for replication and scalability.

Focusing on a specific and unitary solution meets the needs of the groups intrinsic to the problem, those individuals and groups involved and committed to the problem. On the other hand, when we focus on a replicable generic solution, we more successfully meet the needs of extrinsic agents, with interests in solving that problem, which can range from regulatory agencies or some government sphere to capital investors. Extrinsic agents are not directly involved, they run less risk of the impacts of the problem, but they want a solution that favors their broader needs.

It is worth remembering that such broader needs are not necessarily ethical or legitimized by the current notion of “right or fair.” As anthropology and archaeology have long recognized, human nature is competitive rather than collaborative. When a politician advocates building a bridge to a community, this certainly benefits the people who live there, but it may be serving the “broader” desires of his reelection or, so to speak, expanding his sphere of influence and power.

Another important aspect to note is that the generic and scalable solution does not care so much about excellence in meeting objectives. Excellence is relativized in terms of the sustainable fulfillment of general objectives, even if there are still some aspects of the problem that have not been resolved or are poorly resolved and do not have a significant impact on the broader interests that guided all the efforts employed.

Achieving 80% efficiency or a solution in the spread of a virus can remove the problem from the epidemic category and reduce the potential risk to individuals, allowing for the alleviation of restrictions on economic activities and the movement or contact of people. Achieving 80% efficiency in an ethanol production plant may represent a sufficient investment to balance the investment and return on capital, applying a medium-sized technology with a lower cost or shorter installation time, but bringing the profitability expected by investors. Preciousness is not always necessary or interesting. With this distinction regarding the motivating purposes for solving a problem, we can see how we can scale efforts and investments into stages or levels of solution to rationally measure how far we need to go before establishing the routines that will sustain the gains obtained in the form of laws and operational procedures.

No matter our position in the social web, meeting collective desires requires the wisdom of reflections like this to become effective and true contributors to development.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Others also viewed

Explore topics